Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore?

[M.Clifford]

No: HPFGUIDX 142756


> > >>Valky:
> > There's obviously no changing your mind on that Betsy. ;D
>  
> Betsy Hp:
> Oh, someone could change my mind.  (It *has* happened before. 
> <shock, horror>)  Taking the route that Dumbledore was acting with 
> true politeness is not likely to get the job done, however. <g>

Valky:
HEEE! Fair point. :) Although I, of course, do think Dumbledore's
intent was to tame them with their own custom - a diplomatitic
approach which is in character for Dumbledore, I appreciate what
you're saying and I really feel like I should stop niggling about
these details now anyway. <g>

> 
> > >>Valky:
> > <snip>
> > The fact that Dumbledore went himself to the Durselys and did      
> > follow custom, <snip> the strongest argument I can to     
> > the point that Dumbledore did not come with a threat to overwhelm 
> > them into submission.
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> I'm not saying Dumbledore arrived with a plan to threaten the 
> Dursleys into submission.  I'm merely saying that he was not polite 
> within that scene.  Let's take it step by step, and let's throw in a 
> comparison of Dumbledore's behavior here and Arthur Weasley's in 
> GoF. [Page references for both GoF and HBP are for the scholastic 
> hardback editions.]

Valky:
Okay, I'm game. :|

> Betsy:
> 1) Dumbledore  does *not* properly announce his arrival.  He 
> communicates with a minor in the Dursley household, not with Vernon 
> or Petunia [HBP 43].  And as such, his arrival surprises the 
> household [HBP 45].
> 
> Molly Weasley, on the other hand, asks both Petunia and Vernon for 
> permission to come collect Harry and waits to receive an answer [GoF 
> 30].

Valky:
I admit, that's a fair thing to say. I could tweak some of the finer
details of the process to argue for my point. I shouldn't because I
really intended not to squabble minutiae over this, but I should
because not proving this point blanketly undermines my argument
somewhat. Oh! The dilemma of it all... <bg>

Suffice to say that is was not wholly improper to send Harry the
letter, but I concede partially to your point that it was not wholly
diplomatic to leave Vernon and Petunia out of the supposed loop either. 


> Betsy:
> 2) Punctuality is observed by Dumbledore [HBP 44], though he does 
> arrive at a non-traditional visiting hour [HBP 45] without being 
> sure of his welcome.

Valky:
<g> Finally! I knew the non-traditional visiting hour would have to
come in sooner or later I am really surprised that it has taken so
long for someone to challenge it in this discussion. If I was arguing
for the other side, I must say it would have been my *first* point. <g>

I find this part amusing on my read of the chapter, especially while I
try to imagine Dumbledore being wholly diplomatic and customary in his
visit. The funniest part is that Dumbledore's letter states to Harry
that he will visit at this time if it is to Harry's convenience. That
is of course very proper format for an announcement except for the
glaring error of the time. I can't help but view it as a diplomatic
relations joke, lending to the sheer insightlessness of the WW into
the customs of their muggle counterparts. It is a very proper and
decent announcement and, for that, the 'at eleven pm' stands out like
a big red sore thumb in it. I am, perhaps, taking it all without the
required salt but it does seem to me to be the classic insider joke.


Betsy:
> 3)Proper introductions are not observed by Dumbledore.  He should 
> not have arrived at the Dursleys home without first communicating 
> with them. (I agree with Harry that exploding letters really don't 
> count.)  The very fact that he has to explain who he is and what 
> he's doing at eleven o'clock at night in the Dursley foyer [HBP 46-
> 47] suggests that Dumbledore did not observe the usual social 
> niceties.

Valky:
HEE again! You've really outdone yourself with the previous two points
Betsy. I am shot down in flames, to be honest. But even so, I can
answer this point directly because Dumbledore does make proper
introductions and small talk.

He starts with a spit polished address of Vernon. "Good Evening. You
must be Mr Dursley. I daresay Harry has told you I would be coming for
him?" 

At this point Dumbledore has not introduced himself but it is urgent
that they come inside so he does that first and then the introductions
are interrupted by Harry's arrival. Vernon then makes his little
threat of rudeness - how uncannily proving that is of my argument that
they were minding their manners I shouldn't say, right? - and finally
Dumbledore greets Petunia and properly introduces himself as Albus
Dumbledore of the previous correspondence.

I personally disagree with Harry that the Howler discounts this as the
truth, simply because we know that Petunia has recieved another letter
from Dumbledore and that letter must be of some significance to
Petunia for her to involve herself and her family in the magical world
of which they outwardly wish no part. I suspect that in this case
Dumbledore knows something, that Harry does not, about Petunia.

  
> Betsy:
> Molly Weasley, on the other hand, covered it all in her letter.  The 
> Dursleys knew who Arthur Weasley was and why he was there.  (They 
> were still frightened per JKR, "panic-stricken" "terrified", but at 
> least they had *some* idea of what was going on [GoF 42])

Valky:
IIRC the Durselys were panic stricken because people were appearing
out of their fireplace, and not precisely because Arthur was a wizard.
Am I right?

 
> Betsy:
> 4) Dumbledore's small-talk is practically non-existent.  He 
> identifies the members of the Dursley household.  He chastises 
> Vernon a couple of times, and then, after physically assulting the 
> Dursleys, he talks pretty much exclusively with Harry [HBP 45-48].

Valky
Dumbledore gives excellent small talk - "It has been a long time since
my last visit" and "I must say your agapanthus are flourishing." and
"..this must be your son, Dudley." all qualify and would win
Dumbledore favour at any high society ball. He 'can do' the small talk
- aside: I envy him that, believe me. <g>


>Betsy:
> Point by point, Arthur Weasley has Dumbledore beat. 

Valky:
With the exception that Arthur uses the Floo Network while Dumbledore
uses the front door. <g> Dumbledore's mistakes in his diplomacy IMHO
are along the same lines as Arthur's were ie 'glaring evidence that
they were alien to the custom they trying to follow', excepting that
Arthur made rather a larger mess of the house and inadvertently scared
them witless with his mistakes. Dumbledore's mistakes were just
annoying to them, but then Dumbledore himself was annoying to them
without having done anything so he has minimised the damage I think.


Betsy:
> But here's the 
> crux, IMO.  I don't think Dumbledore *wanted* to be polite. 

Valky:
You're right, that is the crux of this, because I most definitely
think that he was trying to be polite. If nothing else the dandiness
of his letter to Harry and small talk with Vernon brims with his
efforts to be thoughtfully polite.

Betsy:
>  He 
> wasn't there on a social visit, he was there on a mission. 

Valky:
I agree with that, and I say it was the reason Dumbledore eventually
took the firm hand and got the job done. But otherwise I am sure he
would have been a near perfectly behaved guest.

Betsy:
> So he 
> *would* show up unannounced to the unpleasant Muggles, he *would* 
> bully the Dursleys into doing as he wished, and he *would* make them 
> sit down and shut up and let he and Harry get on with it.

Valky:
Oh not at all. I really don't think Dumbledore planned to push them
around I think he expected them to dignify his good manners with the
least of reciprocation. He was wholly optimistic about them responding
to their own custom and civilty IMO.

> Besty:
> Dumbledore wasn't polite, but I don't think he'd say he was trying 
> to be.  You laughed at my mob boss reference, but I think the 
> comparison is valid.  Not that Dumbledore *is* a mob boss, but he is 
> using the veneer of politeness in a threatening or intimidating 
> manner.

Valky:
I apologise if I offended you by laughing Betsy. I cannot see the
comparison being valid myself. If we are talking about the traditional
Mob Boss screen caricature then I would say that the person you're
comparing Dumbledore to doesn't need the other person to act rudely or
intend to be rude to them before they chastise, but the Dursleys were
rude to Dumbledore, and they were *trying* to be as subversively rude
as possible. The mob boss caricature is a paranoid lunatic, but
Dumbledore really was being treated like dirt by the Dursleys, so the
comparison does not hold water for me.

I really have to get going as it is my shopping day and I am using too
much of it here. I do promise to answer your other points, Betsy, and
as always thankyou for the lively and interesting debate that you so
consistently deliver. :D

Valky